Bold Nebraska has organized a conference call for Pipeline Fighters, landowners and #NoKXL activists this Thursday evening, July 13th, to discuss the final public hearing on Keystone XL scheduled for July 26th at the Ralston Arena in Omaha, the Aug. 6th “March to Give Keystone XL the Boot” in Lincoln, and the upcoming week of intervenor proceedings at the Public Service Commission Aug. 7-11.

Dial in to join us at 6:00 p.m. CT on Thursday for a Keystone XL conference call update from Bold’s Jane Kleeb.

We have outnumbered the pro-KXL supporters by 3-1 or more at the recent public hearings on Keystone XL, and it’s critical that we turn out in full force for this final Public Service Commission meeting on July 26th in Omaha.

This is your last chance to speak out on the record against Keystone XL — as the “intervenor” proceedings in August will be open to the public to attend and observe, but no public testimony will be taken during that week.

CHARLOTTESVILLE, Va. —Warning that representative government works best when the government’s actions are fully disclosed and citizens are allowed to speak honestly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens without fear of retribution, The Rutherford Institute has issued guidelines for local boards, commissions and councils to consider and follow in order to best assure that the fundamental First Amendment rights of citizens are respected.

In recent years, numerous local boards and commissions have attempted to establish rules and regulations governing speech at public meetings that limit the content and manner of public expression in an attempt to “dial down” the intensity of these meetings and impose a more “civil” discourse. However, these restrictions on expression often run afoul of the First Amendment, making local officials self-appointed censors and arbitrary arbiters of what speech is and is not proper.

The Rutherford Institute’s Public Meetings Guidelines are available at www.rutherford.org.

“Until recently, local government meetings have remained one of the few legitimate forums available to citizens to personally address their government representatives about decisions that have immediate and substantial impact on their day-to-day lives,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “Unfortunately, officials at all levels of government have succeeded in insulating themselves from their constituents through the use of free speech zones, electronic town hall meetings, security barriers, regulations restricting what is said at public meetings, and other tactics that run afoul of the First Amendment’s safeguards for free speech, public assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances. These guidelines are intended to empower citizens to push back against those who would stifle the ardor of citizens, arbitrarily silence critics and impede efforts to assure transparency in government.”

The Rutherford Institute issued its guidelines after being contacted by residents of Charlottesville, Va., who were concerned about draconian changes to the City’s public comment rules regarding the content, duration and protocol for making public comments at City Council meetings. The City’s revised procedures include restrictions on video recording, a prohibition on “improper” comments, exclusion of individuals for disruptive or disorderly conduct, and limitations on who may be addressed. In denouncing the guidelines as overly vague and ambiguous, Institute attorneys have advised City officials that the changes to their meeting procedures violate the letter and spirit of Constitution by imposing obstacles to transparency and citizen engagement.

In calling on the Charlottesville City Council to revoke the rules it has adopted in order to ensure that Council meetings remain a forum for free speech, the Institute warned that if the City is serious about being a leader in the fight for open government, it must demonstrate a commitment to public participation in the democratic process. In 2015, Rutherford Institute attorneys advised the Greene County Board of Supervisors (also in Virginia) against rules adopted governing the open forum public comment period during Board meetings that could be used to censor unpopular but constitutionally protected speech.

The Rutherford Institute, a national nonprofit civil liberties organization based in Charlottesville, Va., defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been violated and educates the public about threats to their freedoms. The Institute has spent more than 30 years advocating for transparency in government and championing the First Amendment right of the citizenry to speak candidly and openly to their elected representatives and other citizens.

I thought you might like to see what we did here in Santa Rosa, CA, to block UN Agenda 21. ONE BAY AREA is a plan (they’re calling it YOUR Plan!) to regionalize the SF Bay Area and dissolve the city, county, and state boundaries. The consultant is holding Delphi meetings all
over the Bay Area to get buy-in for the plan. We were there with our partners in freedom: Heather Gass and the East Bay Tea Party, Orlean Koehle and her crew, the Santa Rosa Neighborhood Coalition, Democrats Against UN Agenda 21, property rights activists, and many others.

Here are our flyers:
NOTICE!

YOU ARE BEING DELPHI’D

This meeting is designed to manipulate and direct public opinion to approve the One Bay Area Plan. The Delphi Method is being used to create the illusion that this is your plan and that you have some part in crafting the outcome. This is a technique developed by the RAND Corporation in the 1960’s which is used by meeting facilitators to block opposition and discard opinions that do not support their plan. This propaganda method uses peer pressure to shame and silence you.

ONE BAY AREA is being used to regionalize the SF Bay Area and erase the city, county, and ultimately, State boundaries. Your transportation tax dollars will be used to build apartments and condos in designated areas of your city—and nowhere else. Your money will be directed to favored developers building stack and pack housing.

You are losing the ability to direct your elected officials through this plan to destroy local representation.

This is happening across the US. There are now 11 Mega Regions designed to replace States. Northern California is one of the Mega Regions (it includes part of Nevada), with over 48,000 square miles and 15 million residents.

ONE BAY AREA is UN Agenda 21

Reverse side of flyer:

NOTICE

YOU CANNOT BE DENIED ACCESS TO THIS MEETING

OPEN MEETING LAWS IN CALIFORNIA:

THE BROWN ACT

Meetings of public bodies must be ‘open and public,’ actions may not be secret, and action taken in violation of open meeting laws may be voided. (Section 54953(a), 54953(c), 54960.1(d)

After reading the Federal Register notice (Sept. 6, 2011) announcing the next Wild Horse and Burro Advisory Board Meeting in Arlington, VA, Oct. 13-14, 2011, it seems that the “Public Comment Procedures” as written here may be in violation of your First Amendment right to free speech.

The notice states that “Speakers must submit a written copy of their statement to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section above, or bring a written copy to the meeting.”

Why “must” you do this? It’s a public meeting and you don’t have to submit anything to have the right to speak at a public meeting. You can just tell them your name and tell them you want to speak. Period. The meeting will probably be recorded and the BLM could use the recording for transcription purposes, and any requested written comments should be voluntary. That is not what is stated in the Federal Register. Also, requiring that speakers submit a written copy of their statements could discourage some people (who don’t like to write) from speaking.

You also don’t have to “address the specific wild horse and burro related topics on the agenda.” This is a violation of your First Amendment right to free speech. You can talk about anything you want to talk about. If you want to get up and read “Little Bo Peep” for 3 minutes (or whatever time limit they set), you have the First Amendment right to do that. If the BLM only wants you to talk about topics on the agenda, and then controls the agenda, they could then possibly control the content of public comments, which might then be against your right to free speech.

The notice also states “The BLM considers comments that are either supported by quantitative information or studies or those that include citations to and analysis of applicable laws and regulations to be most useful and likely to influence BLM’s decisions on the management and protection of wild horses and burros.”

Why do we have to include “quantitative information or studies” with a comment or opinion for it to be “most likely to influence” the BLM? More